DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-13 and 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silverbrook (US 6,383,833 B1)
Regarding claims 1-4, 9-13 and 83:
re claim 1, Silverbrook discloses (in Figs. 1, 7 and 8) a micro-component module, comprising:
a module substrate 10 (Col. 2, line 38) having a top side and an opposing bottom side, wherein the module substrate is flexible (e.g., the module substrate 10 in Figs. 7-8 can be separated into portions, i.e., substrate 10 is not a single, rigid substrate);
a component 16 (Col. 2, lines 40-42) disposed on [an opposing side of] the top side of the module substrate 10; and
a module tether 24 (Figs. 7-8 and Col. 2, line 61),
wherein the module tether 24 extends (i) beyond the module substrate 10 and (ii) directly
beneath only a portion of the bottom side of the [entire] module substrate 10 and within only a portion of [an entire orthographical projection of] the module substrate 10;
re claim 2, the micro-component module of claim 1, wherein the module tether 24 extends beneath only a portion of the bottom side of the [entire] module substrate 10;
re claim 3, the micro-component module of claim 1, wherein the module tether extends within only a portion of [the entire orthographical projection of] the module substrate;
re claim 4, the micro-component module of claim 1, wherein the module tether 24 further extends on only [an opposing side of] a portion of the top side of the [entire] module substrate;
re claim 9, the micro-component module of claim 1, wherein the module tether 24 is broken (Fig. 8);
re claim 10, the micro-component module of claim 1, further comprising a second module tether (e.g., in Figs. 7-8, there are a plurality of module tethers 24) wherein the second module tether extends (i) beyond the module substrate 10 and (ii) directly beneath only a portion of the bottom side of the module substrate 10, within only a portion of [an entire orthographical projection of] the module substrate 10, or both;
re claim 11, the micro-component module of claim 1, comprising an encapsulation layer 56 (Fig. 8) disposed on [a bottom side] the module substrate 10 and the component 16 and wherein the module tether 24 extends directly over only a portion of the encapsulation layer 57 (i.e., in Fig. 8, the module tether 24 being removed overlaps only a portion of the encapsulation layer 57 due to the opening for the UV light 54);
re claim 12, the micro-component module of claim 1, comprising an encapsulation layer 57 (Fig. 8) disposed on [a bottom side] the module substrate 10 and the component 16 and wherein the encapsulation layer 57 extends directly over only a portion of [an entire orthographical projection of] the module tether 24 (i.e., encapsulation layer 57 has an opening, therefore, it cannot extend directly over an entire orthographical projection of the module tether 24);
re claim 13, the micro-component module of claim 11, wherein the encapsulation layer 57 comprises a same material (e.g., atoms, neutrons, protons, or electrons) as the module substrate 10; and
re claim 83, A micro-component module, comprising:
a module substrate 10 (Col. 2, line 38) having a top side and an opposing bottom side, wherein the module substrate is flexible (e.g., the module substrate 10 in Figs. 7-8 can be separated into portions, i.e., substrate 10 is not a single, rigid substrate);
a component 16 (Col. 2, lines 40-42) disposed on [an opposing side of] the top side of the module substrate; and
a module tether 24 (Figs. 7-8 and Col. 2, line 61),
wherein the module tether 24 extends (i) beyond the module substrate 10 and (ii) directly
beneath only a portion of the bottom side of the [entire] module substrate.
Therefore, Silverbrook anticipates claims 1-4, 9-13 and 83
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverbrook.
Regarding claims 5-8:
The current claims are essentially directed to, or related to, specific materials for the module substrate and module tether. Although Silverbrook does not specifically disclose materials as currently recited, the current claims are deemed obvious because the general conditions of the claimed invention have been disclosed, and given Silverbrook, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to incorporate well known materials according to there suitability for the intended purpose. In other word, the materials recited in the current claims are well known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to incorporate such well-known materials without extensive experimentation. Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverbrook in view of Yeh et al. (US 2013/0140655 A1; hereinafter, “Yeh”).
Regarding claim 14:
Silverbrook anticipates the micro-component module of claim 1 and discloses the micro-component module is a MEMS chip; however, Silverbrook does not disclose exactly how the MEMS chip would be mounted on a source wafer.
Yeh teaches a MEMS chip 216 (Fig. 2 and [0019]) suspended over a source wafer 202 by a module tether 218/230 defining a gap between the micro-component module 216 and the wafer 202. Yeh discloses such a structure provides an acoustic transducer [0004 and 0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically mount Silverbrook’s MEMS chip on a source wafer, as taught by Yeh, because such a structure could provide an acoustic transducer.
Regarding claim 15:
Although Silverbrook is silent as to whether the module substrate 10 is curved, however, the module substrate comprises chambers 34/36 (Fig. 1); accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically incorporate chambers 34/36 such that the upper corners of the chambers have a slight curvature in order to prevent that the struts 30 from breaking off. Furthermore, when Silverbrook’s MEMS chip is incorporated with a source wafer, as taught by Yeh, the module substrate 10 would not be in contact with the wafer other than by the module tether 24, which is a support for the MEMS chip.
Remarks
Claims 16-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
The amendment to the claims overcome the prior rejections; however, the currents claims are broad enough to be anticipated or rendered obvious by Silverbrook and Yeh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892